Blair's change of heart . . .

Originally posted by junior


Going with multiple smaller carriers when one large carrier will do the job has its plusses, but they're outweighed by the negatives. The biggest is the simple fact that if you do your job correctly, the carriers will never come under fire. Second is that multiple small carriers are more expensive than a single big carrier. Third is the fact that coordination between multiple ships is a chore during the best of times, and a serious hazard at the worst. Using a single large carrier simplifies all of those so that you can concentrate on winning the war instead of juggling carriers.
Light carriers have their uses, but the centerpoint of a battle group is generally not a good use for them.

I believe that in the WC4 novel, Blair states to Tolwyn that several "jeep" carriers could be constructed for the same money and or resource cost as a single Vesuvius class carrier. Actually, and I'm not entirely sure, but I believe someone has even made this same comment earlier in this thread already.
 
The other drawback to the big carriers is that when someone gets lucky (as happened with both the Vesuvius and the St. Helens) you lose the lot in one go.

Best, Raptor
 
The best solution is to have both large fleet carriers and escort carriers. Confed seems to believe in this since its got both.
 
Great discussion.To bad I was sleeping:( ,the time is different here.Almost everything have been said here about the Midway-Vesuvious and generally the carriers.

What Im curious about is where did you get the information about the Vesouvious-Midway figher complement etc.
And about which one is the Flagship etc

I checked every manual,every data I have and I found nothing...

Are these suggestions , or actual data ?

:cool:
 
Originally posted by TCSTigersClaw
What Im curious about is where did you get the information about the Vesouvious-Midway figher complement etc.
The WCP ICIS manual clearly states that the MIDWAY-class carries 252 fighters in three Wings.

I believe the 400 figure for the VESUVIUS-class comes from the WCIV novel.
 
I know about the Midway.I was taling about the Vesuvious.

OK, maybe the fighter complement of Vesouvious is in the novel (I havent read it:( ).But what about the Confed flagships?
I dont think that there is somewere written that the Vesouvious is the Confeds flagship and the MIdway Class their standar carriers.:p
 
Originally posted by TCSTigersClaw
I know about the Midway.I was taling about the Vesuvious.

Read your post and his post. I think he answered what you asked. And PLEASE, it´s spelled VESUVIUS, as in that Italian volcano that dusted a city a long, long time ago.
 
What I asked is where did he take the information about which is the main Terran Carrier and which the advanced one.
I know what he said about the Vesuvius.
 
Originally posted by TCSTigersClaw
I know about the Midway.I was taling about the Vesuvious.

OK, maybe the fighter complement of Vesouvious is in the novel (I havent read it:( ).But what about the Confed flagships?
I dont think that there is somewere written that the Vesouvious is the Confeds flagship and the MIdway Class their standar carriers.:p

A flagship is any ship upon which an flag officer sets up his... um... flag. There's at least one to every battle group, pretty much.
 
well...

Thats it for a flagship.

Usually Task Force Commanders set up on the largest ships (in WC Carriers, in real life Carriers, Amphibious Landing Ships, BattleShips)

But if its a destroyer squadron for instance, whatever ship they commanded/command is usually the flagship.
 
Don't worry TC, I think he was just trying to explain for other situations, rather than flagships for actual full on Battle groups. (Containing anything from Commodores and Admirals, and such.)
 
Jeep Carriers vs Fleet Carriers

The debate is which Carrier is 'better'' (for combat not economics) It depends on how much firepower the fighters are packing. If it only takes 1-2 torpedeos to down a large carrier then you would want smaller ones. However if it took like 10 or so (this was the case during WWII) you would want the big one with more firepower.
 
Re: Jeep Carriers vs Fleet Carriers

Originally posted by SullonZek_Eq
The debate is which Carrier is 'better'' (for combat not economics) It depends on how much firepower the fighters are packing. If it only takes 1-2 torpedeos to down a large carrier then you would want smaller ones. However if it took like 10 or so (this was the case during WWII) you would want the big one with more firepower.
Dunno where you got the idea that it takes 10 torps to down a heavy carrier during WWII. Totally inaccurate. In fact, none of the carriers sunk in WWII required so much ordance. Here are some examples:

USS LEXINGTON, CV-2: 2 torpedo, 2 bomb
USS YORKTOWN, CV-5: 2 torpedo, 3 bomb
USS WASP, CV-7: 3 torpedo
IJNS AKAGI: 2 bomb
IJNS SORYU: 3 bomb
IJNS HIRYU: 4 bomb
IJNS KAGA: 4 bomb
IJNS SHINANO: 1 torpedo
IJNS HIYO: 1 (maybe 2) torpedo
IJNS UNRYU: 2 torpedo
IJNS SHOKAKU: 3 torpedo
IJNS TAIHO: 1 torpedo

Very few vessels of the WWII era required a lot of hits. The three exceptions that I can think of off the top of my head are the USS HORNET, CV-8 (2 bomb, 7 torpedo), and the Japanese superbattleships MUSASHI (est. 19 torpedo, 20 bomb) and YAMATO (est. 9 torpedo, 17 bomb).

You can read about the Japanese superbattleship sinkings here:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/musashi.htm
http://www.combinedfleet.com/yamato.htm

Note especially the links at the bottom of the latter to dioramas of the YAMATO wreckage, and the damage to her hull.
 
Re: Re: Jeep Carriers vs Fleet Carriers

Originally posted by OriginalPhoenix
Very few vessels of the WWII era required a lot of hits.

True. Some of the ships that could sustain more hits were the German´s Bismarck and the Graf Spee.
 
Re: Re: Re: Jeep Carriers vs Fleet Carriers

Originally posted by Starkey


True. Some of the ships that could sustain more hits were the German´s Bismarck and the Graf Spee.


Graf Spee?
It was a puny U-Boat, it surrendered without problem.
 
I might have overrated the "Admiral Graf Spee" by comparing it to the Bismarck, but it was no puny U-boat.

grafs6.jpg


"Conceived in 1928, the new warships were designed according to weight restrictions (10,000 tons) imposed by the 1919 Versailles Treaty. Carrying massive 11-inch guns and bearing high, dominant control towers they resembled small battleships. The brilliantly engineered warships, with prototype deisel engines and electrically welded hulls, remained an enigma to potential enemies. Reputed to be faster than a battleship and more powerful than a cruiser they caused some alarm in international naval circles. Admiral Graf Spee, commissioned in 1936, was the most modern of these ships. Dubbed pocket battleships, Deutschland, Admiral Scheer and Admiral Graf Spee held the premier position in the German fleet in the thirties. They presented a powerful face to the world's navies."

Although not very powerful, the Graf Spee never surrendered. It was badly damaged in a battle against 3 English ships, where it disabled the HMS Exeter and damaged the HMS Ajax and the HMS Achilles, before its crew fled and were accepted as refugees in Argentina.
 
Back
Top